Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Teller on theft in magic

esquire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Teller on theft in magic

#41

Post by majormajor »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #39
thaumaturgy wrote: post #36

I think the most common argument I hear against IP protections for software is that so much of it is obvious, or incremental. We have companies patenting and suing over techniques which are considered common knowledge by many programmers. How silly was it that Oracle's recent huge lawsuit ended up hinging on a range check function? But is that the same as a masterful magic trick? And if not, should we treat it the sa…

> the very idea behind IP laws in the first place was to protect effort // The idea from the point of view of the populus is to encourage innovation and open cultural expression. A corollary of that is the protection of livelihood of creators/inventors if that is required to support the general aims. So are illusionists who're creating innovative cultural expressions of their art ceasing to create for want of funding…

Part of the article discussed a "trick inventor" who's pretty much stopped coming up with new ones in favor of other things, like writing about the history of magic, since it's reaching the point where he couldn't make a profit on it:

  "Invention is all fuzzy, sloppy stuff," Steinmeyer says.
  "I have patents, and I have had patents that have expired.
  Everything has a limited lifetime. But when a person can't
  make a living by coming up with new material, that's when
  you have to wonder about the system. I would say that over
  the last few years, the last ten years, it's a net zero.
  I'm putting as much money into it as I'm getting out."

Re: Teller on theft in magic

#44

Post by SeanLuke »

majormajor wrote: post #41
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the very idea behind IP laws in the first place was to protect effort // The idea from the point of view of the populus is to encourage innovation and open cultural expression. A corollary of that is the protection of livelihood of creators/inventors if that is required to support the general aims. So are illusionists who're creating innovative cultural expressions of their art ceasing to create for want of funding…

Part of the article discussed a "trick inventor" who's pretty much stopped coming up with new ones in favor of other things, like writing about the history of magic, since it's reaching the point where he couldn't make a profit on it: "Invention is all fuzzy, sloppy stuff," Steinmeyer says. "I have patents, and I have had patents that have expired. Everything has a limited lifetime. But when a person can't make a liv…

Jim Steinmeyer is the man. (http://www.jimsteinmeyer.com/) Much of the magic world is divided into two jobs: people who design tricks and people who present them to the audience. Both are difficult and respected positions. Jim is one of the very topmost people with the first job (Teller does both). In addition to his career as an illusion engineer, Jim also is a major scholar on magic history. His book, "Hiding the Elephant", is an awesome read.

Interesting, and particularly relevant to this discussion, is the fact that "Hiding the Elephant" spends a fair bit of time going over probably the single most famous theft of magic in history: when American magician Harry Kellar stole the British magician John Maskelyne's "The Entranced Fakir" levitating woman trick. Kellar bribed one of Maskelyne's stage magicians, Paul Valadon, to obtain the plans to the trick, and then used the stolen trick to establish himself as maybe the most famous American magician of the time. His entire career in magic had been founded on plagiarism.

Re: Teller on theft in magic

#45

Post by pqdbr »

I've been to their vegas show this August and I swear, it's something that I'll carry for me for a long time, if not forever. I couldn't believe my eyes and the feeling of witnessing those tricks live right in front of you is indescribable.

Re: Teller on theft in magic

#46

Post by dantheman »

lukevdp wrote: post #35
modeless wrote: post #21

As staunch libertarians, I would have thought that Penn and Teller would be against such strong IP protection.

Libertarians are all for property rights. Penn has talked about this issue before on Penn Point as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlEBh_98lIo

Many think that intellectual property isn't property. Since it doesn't behave like property and is in fact a government granted monopoly.

Re: Teller on theft in magic

#47

Post by Bud »

It's easy to dismiss Teller because he works in Vegas in a rather quirky profession. But his is a peculiarly deep, sensitive and beautiful mind. I tend to love everything he writes, and most things written about him.

Re: Teller on theft in magic

#48

Post by Vivtek »

Bud wrote: post #47

It's easy to dismiss Teller because he works in Vegas in a rather quirky profession. But his is a peculiarly deep, sensitive and beautiful mind. I tend to love everything he writes, and most things written about him.

It's easy to dismiss Teller until you encounter Teller.

Re: Teller on theft in magic

#50

Post by haberman »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #36

I think the most common argument I hear against IP protections for software is that so much of it is obvious, or incremental. We have companies patenting and suing over techniques which are considered common knowledge by many programmers. How silly was it that Oracle's recent huge lawsuit ended up hinging on a range check function? But is that the same as a masterful magic trick? And if not, should we treat it the sa…

> I think that the very idea behind IP laws in the first place was to protect effort

No, this is know as a "sweat of the brow" interpretation and has been rejected by the US Supreme Court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow

Just because something takes effort does not mean it should be protected. Just because a person could make more money by having exclusivity does not mean that thing should be protected.

I haven't thought about the issue of magic tricks enough to know what I think about it, but I definitely resist the notion that something should be protected simply because it took work to create. That way leads to a society where everything is pay-per-view. For example, just because I scan an old book doesn't mean I should own a copyright on the scan.

Post reply on HN